Master Index of Archived Threads


September Bomb

Edgy MD Feb 18 2014 08:48 AM

So, working with a bunch of broadly held assumptions: 1) The Mets have a lot of talented young pitchers with a chance to crack the rotation. 2) Any hope of the Mets entering into a playoff race depends on some of that talent coming to fruition. 3) Much if not all of that talent --- Wheeler, Mejia, Syndegaard, Montero, deGrom... Matz, Familia (though he's much more likely to land in the pen) --- will fall under the organizational policy of holding young pitchers to innings limits and not increasing their total more than X amount per year. So a scenario can develop where a few of these guys help pitch the Mets into contention by late August and then get pulled out of circulation --- replaced by journeymen/waiver claims/vets hanging in there. (Or maybe Matt Harvey ZING!) That's a what-if, of course, but even if the playoff scenario doesn't come to pass, recent years have certainly demonstrated how it can be dis-spiriting to a team and a fan base to be improving through the season based on the addition of young talent, only to shelve that talent just as they become the most interesting part of the season's story. Modest proposal: If all of those guys are on innings limits, pick two of them and send them to extended spring training camp on opening day, and keep them on the shelf until mid-May, so there'll be a couple of young pitchers who aren't maxed out come late August.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 18 2014 08:58 AM Re: September Bomb

Or they go into the playoffs with a rotation of Niese, Gee, Matsuzaka, and Lannan. I remember the Nationals had this issue with Strasburg in 2012. The team had a pretty comfortable lead and could have backed off Stasburg's innings in August (maybe shift him to five innings per week in long relief), built up his innings a bit in September, and then they would have had him available in October. The Mets could do something like this if they're contending, but there's a difference between nursing a comfy lead in the standings and scratching for a wild card spot. If the Mets contend, they're more likely to be scratching than comfy. But I do believe they should do something to stagger the innings load among these young pitchers. One idea that's been floated is to have some of them start the season in the bullpen (either in New York or Las Vegas) so they don't pile up too many innings too early. It will be interesting to see if the Mets do anything like that.

Ceetar Feb 18 2014 09:03 AM Re: September Bomb

yes, but the guys they're holding back early are actually guys that still need to pitch innings to develop. It's not (just) service time issues. Or you could just say "Screw it" to the innings limits, since they really have no discernible effect. (yeah, that'll happen..) Have we heard anything on Mejia's limits? or is it just assumed he'll probably keep totals down through injury? If it does become an issue..6-man rotation? Wheeler's limits won't be small anyway, and if everyone's healthy you can simply slow everyone down that way.

Edgy MD Feb 18 2014 09:05 AM Re: September Bomb

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Or they go into the playoffs with a rotation of Niese, Gee, Matsuzaka, and Lannan. Well, I don't consider that necessarily an "or" but an example of one of the outcomes I'm projecting --- unless Matsuzaka and Lannan were part of the rotation that pitched them toward the playoffs all season long, in which case, assumption (2) will not have come to pass. Ceetar wrote: yes, but the guys they're holding back early are actually guys that still need to pitch innings to develop. It's not (just) service time issues. I'm not speaking here to service time issues.

Ceetar Feb 18 2014 09:10 AM Re: September Bomb

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: yes, but the guys they're holding back early are actually guys that still need to pitch innings to develop. It's not (just) service time issues. I'm not speaking here to service time issues. well what's the other issue? If you don't start these guys until May, they may not get the minors innings in that warrant a promotion. And then they might only hit 150 and what if the Mets can't afford to give an unproven rookie a few starts in September after minors season is over? Now you've (theoretically) lowered their inning cap for next season too.

TransMonk Feb 18 2014 09:13 AM Re: September Bomb

While Edgy's plan is sound...I'm not sure that the brain trust has the confidence that this team will be competing for a playoff spot later in the season to do something so proactive in April. There are still a lot of question marks in the lineup that will need to fall the right way in order for the Mets to think about October as well. I'm certainly not saying that it would be impossible, but I think the Mets will see what they have in July and go from there. They could certainly take the multi-pronged approach of the 6-man rotation/signing or trading for an innings eating vet/re-evaluating Harvey. Along with the question marks in the young rotation and the lineup...if this bullpen turns out to be semi-reliable, that would help maintain innings for the youngsters as well.

Edgy MD Feb 18 2014 09:26 AM Re: September Bomb

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: yes, but the guys they're holding back early are actually guys that still need to pitch innings to develop. It's not (just) service time issues. I'm not speaking here to service time issues. well what's the other issue? The issue is innings caps that have been generally imposed on young pitchers in recent years for the intended purpose of protecting their health.

Ceetar Feb 18 2014 09:51 AM Re: September Bomb

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: yes, but the guys they're holding back early are actually guys that still need to pitch innings to develop. It's not (just) service time issues. I'm not speaking here to service time issues. well what's the other issue? The issue is innings caps that have been generally imposed on young pitchers in recent years for the intended purpose of protecting their health. Well, it doesn't. but that wasn't my question. You're inferring these guys are going to pitch in September for the Mets. I guess my problem is your assumptions. I think any hope the Mets have on the playoffs hinges a lot on Ike Davis/first base and Travis d'Arnaud and the offense more than the pitching. and it's pitching health that's the concern. With the possible exception of Thor (and probably not him), I don't think any of those guys are even remotely expected to be part of the 2014 playoff push. In fact, I think they may be detrimental to it. Especially if you hold them back in extended spring training. You're suggesting pick two pitchers to pitch 90-60 minors-majors instead of 120-30, but those 30 innings of AAA are important for development, and unless it's your top guy who you think is mostly ready and say only needs 50 AAA innings, you're just going to end up promoting someone who's even less ready for the adjustment period of stepping up a level.

Edgy MD Feb 18 2014 10:11 AM Re: September Bomb

I don't know why you want to create a pointless conflict. Ceetar wrote: Well, it doesn't. Which is fine. It's also not what I'm speaking to. Ceetar wrote: but that wasn't my question. Your question was "What's the other issue?" And I answered that. You're inferring these guys are going to pitch in September for the Mets. If "these guys" is "Wheeler, Mejia, Syndegaard, Montero, deGrom... Matz, Familia," I'm inferring the exact opposite. I guess my problem is your assumptions. They're not mine. I described them as broadly held. Please don't ask me to produce documentation. I think any hope the Mets have on the playoffs hinges a lot on Ike Davis/first base and Travis d'Arnaud and the offense more than the pitching. and it's pitching health that's the concern. And I think it hinges on a cholera outbreak during a weekend series when the Braves are in Washington. But please try and stay with the point of the thread. With the possible exception of Thor (and probably not him), I don't think any of those guys are even remotely expected to be part of the 2014 playoff push. I don't think there's broadly expected to BE a pennant push, but whatever the team's position in the standings, the progression of many of these pitchers to major league contributors has been broadly presented as part of the goal for the season. In fact, I think they may be detrimental to it. Getting Zack Wheeler out of the rotation --- key to the pennant push. Got it. Especially if you hold them back in extended spring training. You're suggesting pick two pitchers to pitch 90-60 minors-majors instead of 120-30, but those 30 innings of AAA are important for development, and unless it's your top guy who you think is mostly ready and say only needs 50 AAA innings, you're just going to end up promoting someone who's even less ready for the adjustment period of stepping up a level. Somebody else is going to have to parse this. But I'm not advocating here for limiting pitchers' workload by a single inning. Nor am I suggesting that they pitch a greater or lesser percentage of their innings in the minors than they already would have. What I am suggesting is that IF it is the team's plan (and it is broadly reported to be such) to limit young pitchers' workloads (and I am NOT speaking to the advisability of this) than perhaps it might be helpful to not end everybody's seasons six weeks early, but start some of them six weeks late. It's really a simple thought. One of the simplest I've had all day.

Ceetar Feb 18 2014 10:35 AM Re: September Bomb

Edgy MD wrote: What I am suggesting is that IF it is the team's plan (and it is broadly reported to be such) to limit young pitchers' workloads (and I am NOT speaking to the advisability of this) than perhaps it might be helpful to not end everybody's seasons six weeks early, but start some of them six weeks late. It's really a simple thought. One of the simplest I've had all day. Why? The minor league season ends in early September. The progression of these pitchers (Wheeler aside, who's cap is higher anyway) is independent of the Mets major league roster plans. IF they're deemed to be worthy of a promotion, it'll be for the sake of their progression, and making them better, not for helping the Mets. I'm sure they've considered the idea that when a pitcher gets hurt that one of the prospects could then be promoted, but they'd actually be less likely to be ready if they were held back. Also if any of those pitchers gets hurt they won't hit their innings cap if they start late, which hurts their innings for 2015 as well.

Edgy MD Feb 18 2014 10:48 AM Re: September Bomb

It's really a simple thought. One of the simplest I've had all day. If anybody else wants to dive in, go ahead. I'm exceedingly tired of you hijacking the simplest threads with bizarre bombs of obfuscation.

Ceetar Feb 18 2014 10:51 AM Re: September Bomb

Edgy MD wrote: It's really a simple thought. One of the simplest I've had all day. If anybody else wants to dive in, go ahead. I'm exceedingly tired of you hijacking the simplest threads with bizarre bombs of obfuscation. Fine. I'll keep it simple since discussion doesn't seem to be your thing. No, it's not a good idea to send highly touted pitching prospects to extended spring training.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 18 2014 11:01 AM Re: September Bomb

Edgy MD wrote: If anybody else wants to dive in, go ahead.

Edgy MD Feb 18 2014 11:08 AM Re: September Bomb

Ceetar wrote: Fine. I'll keep it simple since discussion doesn't seem to be your thing.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 18 2014 11:21 AM Re: September Bomb

I think they should go into the season without concerning themselves with innings limits. Let Syndergaard and Wheeler and Montero pitch as they would normally. (Most of their starts would probably be limited to six innings anyway, at least early on.) If we get to June and the Mets are contending, then maybe you start coming up with ways to reduce the innings load. Of course, as I implied above, it may be hard or impossible to reduce the amount of innings from certain pitchers without having a negative effect on the ability to stay in the race. I'm glad they have Matsuzaka and Colon and Lannan. (I forgot to mention Colon in my first post in this thread!) It will, if necessary, give the Mets more flexibility when it comes to innings management. It will still be very difficult to have Wheeler and Syndergaard pitching in October, unless they end up missing a chunk of time during the regular season. (And nobody wants that!)

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 18 2014 09:07 PM Re: September Bomb

Totally tubular midsummer bullpen vacation for the kidzzzz! Or-- and I suspect they go this way-- there'll be a whole lotta 4-5 inning starts for Thor and Montero in the early going. I mean, this would be a great problem to have. I just don't think we're going to have it.

Edgy MD Feb 18 2014 09:14 PM Re: September Bomb

Well, we may not have "it" but they may be in a position of shutting down so many pitchers at once that they suddenly go from a wealth of effective pitchers to shortfall, playoffs or not. But certainly, if such a wealth does materialize, it may indeed lead to a chance to lighten workloads through shorter starts and/or a six-pitcher rotation.

Lefty Specialist Feb 19 2014 06:08 AM Re: September Bomb

Let things play out. I seriously doubt they're making a run, so the percentages would tell you that you should keep all the young pitchers on their time lines and innings limits. It'll mean more Lannan/Matsuzaka/Whoever in meaningless games. I'd rather keep my young talent on track than screw around with them on the off chance they might be competing for a playoff spot. But that's just me. Oh, and a cute bunny.

Edgy MD Feb 19 2014 07:18 AM Re: September Bomb

Well, the same bomb looms whether or not the team is going to be contending --- possibly shutting down five or so pitchers with six or so weeks to go.

metsmarathon Feb 19 2014 07:45 AM Re: September Bomb

its been a while since i jumped right into the thick of a senseless slapfight, but here goes. just, no scratching. its a slap fight, not a cat fight. i need to keep my face pretty. anyways, it sounds like the discussion started out as follows: assumption 1: the mets will have a number of pitchers, both in the majors and in the minors, who will have imposed upon them an innings cap, with the presumed intention of reducing eventual likilihood of injury for those players. assumption 2: major and minor league innings count equally. 100 AAA innings and 100 MLB innings are equal. promotions to and relegations from the MLB do not affect the innings count, aside from usage effects, (ie putting a starter in the pen). assumption 3: in either scenario, the mets fall tantalizingly short of hte playoffs, so we don't have to jump hte gun and worry overly much about the impact of either of htese scenarios on the readiness of the players for the postseason, and whether or not innings caps should apply when teams are in teh playoffs. that seems very much like a different, though related, discussion. baseline scenario: the mets break training camp with all of those many starting pitching prospects in their respective slots in their respective rotations in their respective developmental stages (majors, AAA, AA, etc). the players all pitch regularly, on normal rest, with no specific tactical or strategic efforts made to reduce their workloads during hte season. when the player reaches a given pre-set innings limit, the player is put on hte shelf. when they are put on the shelf, their innings are assumed by other members of the roster, be they arms out of the bullpen, journeyman veterans, or call-ups, likely for hte final 4-6 weeks of the season. edgy scenario: with the exception of 2-3 selected players, the mets break training camp with all of their many starting pitching prospects in their respective slots in their respective rotations in their respective developmental stages. these players breaking camp all pitch regularly, on normal rest, with no specific tactical or strategic efforts made to reduce their workloads during hte season. when the player reaches a given pre-set innings limit, the player is put on hte shelf. those 2-3 excepted players, however, stay in extended spring training for 4-6 weeks. while these players are in extended spring training, their workload is assumed by bullpen arms, journeyman veterans, or call-ups, for hte first 4-6 weeks of the season. once their extended spring training is over, they assume their rightful slots in their respective rotations in their respective developmental stages. the extended spring training allows these players to pitch through the end of the season. alternate (joba rules) scenario: the mets break training camp with all of those many starting pitching prospects in their respective slots in their respective rotations in their respective developmental stages (majors, AAA, AA, etc). the players all pitch regularly, on normal rest, but with per-game innings or pitch limits which would allow hte pitchers to play the full season without hitting their innings cap. old school scenario: the developing pitchers spend some time in the bullpen, either on a pre-set rotation or some ad hoc scheme. these developing pitchers are frequently allowed to pitch multiple innings once inserted into games. some might even experience save opportunities if pitching well. .... i think the biggest risk with the [u:491bhmol]edgy scenario [/u:491bhmol]is that the pitchers selected for extended spring training might feel that they are being held back unfairly, and that it somehow might be a negative reflection upon them as players. this would be countered by stressing that those players are being held back so as to ensure their availability for potentially the most important games the team might play. i don't believe that holding a player back would necessarily retard his development. if for instance a player needed 50 innings to improve himself in some facet, and was going to pitch 150 innings overall in a given season, then as long as that player gets those 50 innings, it shouldn't matter if those innings are in april, may or june. (provided he still gets the about the same 150 innings). i suppose another potential risk is that if one of the players you've held back gets injured, he has those 4-6 weeks less of a season in which to return. and we're all going to pretend to be smart enough to assume that the extended spring training was not a cause in itself of the injury. what are the pros and cons of each of these scenarios? which would be the preferred course of action for the mets? why is somebody hitting me with a handbag?

seawolf17 Feb 19 2014 10:12 AM Re: September Bomb

Thought this was a thread about Rey Ordonez's annual home run.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 20 2014 11:29 AM Re: September Bomb

Mets are thinking about this stuff too: PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. -- Paul DePodesta suggested there are too many variables to give a precise number. But, as a rule of thumb, the Mets VP acknowledged Noah Syndergaard will be permitted somewhere in the vicinity of a 30-inning increase over last season’s total. Syndergaard threw 124 2/3 innings in 2013, including in the Eastern League playoffs and with an inning in the Futures Game at Citi Field. “I would say as a rough estimate, that’s fine,” DePodesta said. “A lot of it’s going to be on how he actually racks up those innings -- how efficient he is in the pitch counts, how much rest he’s getting between starts, how much side work we do with him. “So there are a lot of other things that we factor into it. But, as a general marker, that’s roughly fair. I mean, we may go over that. We end up feeling we have to come short of that. But I’d say it’s at least a fair estimate.” In order to conserve innings for Syndergaard for Double-A Binghamton’s playoffs last season, the top prospect was permitted only 59 pitches in a July 28 start, despite being in the midst of a one-hitter. A week later, he threw 66 pitches and was pulled from a two-hit shutout after five innings. Six days later it was 56 pitches. Then it was 66 pitches. Then Syndergaard was skipped for a start entirely. This year, those second-half starts should come at the big-league level. So the Mets may be shaving his outings earlier in the season in order to ensure innings are left in the tank late. Said DePodesta: “We haven’t laid it all out yet, but I think we are going to try to manage through the course of the season -- not just with him, but with some other guys this year -- so we don’t get to the position in August where we say, ‘OK, we want to be saving these guys for playoffs.’ So we may do some things in May and in June toward that end.” That means more than capping outings at 60 pitches. Syndergaard and others could find themselves in the bullpen at Triple-A for a turn or two of the rotation, pitching an inning on their regular day instead of a full start. “When I was in Los Angeles, one of the things we did was that we took almost all of our starters in the minor leagues and we skipped them once or twice through the course of the summer,” DePodesta said. “But during the time they were being skipped, they would pitch out of the bullpen. Now, they may only go an inning. It would be a scheduled inning. “The purpose behind it was, one, to manage their innings. And, two, was to actually give them experience of what it was like to warm up in the middle of the game and then come in and pitch in the bullpen. Because a lot of guys when they first get to the big leagues, that’s what they do. And a lot of them have never done it before. So at least give them that experience, and also give them a blow in the middle of the season and give them a chance to catch their breath and let their arms and their legs recover.” Will DePodesta rule out Syndergaard temporarily in a major league bullpen later this year? That’s above his pay grade, DePodesta suggested. “That’s not my call, ultimately,” DePodesta said. “There are certain guys that I would say we’re more open to it than others. But, again, ultimately that’s not my decision.” DePodesta said all of the Mets’ upper-level starting prospects would be good bullpen candidates because of their solid command. Said DePodesta: “They’re all above-average strike-throwers in terms of the guys that are here -- [Logan] Verrett, [Cory] Mazzoni, [Rafael] Montero, [Jacob] deGrom, Syndergaard.”

Edgy MD Feb 20 2014 12:02 PM Re: September Bomb

I like the ancillary effect that putting a young pitcher on tight restrictions can have --- forcing him to attack the strike zone. Hasn't really worked on Wheeler yet, though, has it?

batmagadanleadoff Feb 25 2014 01:43 PM Re: September Bomb

From Grantland's NRI round-up: New York Mets: Noah Syndergaard, RHP Hey, look, it’s another really good, really big right-handed pitching prospect with star potential. Syndergaard, another casualty of Toronto’s cash-in-prospects-and-go-for-it-now spree last winter, is one of two starting pitching prospects snagged by GM Sandy Alderson in what now look like major heists. (Getting Syndergaard and catcher Travis d’Arnaud for R.A. Dickey was one, getting Zack Wheeler for a Carlos Beltran summer rental was the other.) Syndergaard is a 6-foot-6, 240-pound hoss of a Texan who fanned 133 batters (against just 28 walks) over 117? innings last year between the high Single-A and Double-A levels. The Mets added reinforcements over the winter by signing players like Bartolo Colon and Curtis Granderson, but they’re probably still not contenders — meaning they won’t have much incentive to rush Syndergaard. A 2015 rotation with a healthy Matt Harvey, Wheeler, and Syndergaard at the top could be big trouble for the rest of the NL East, though. Cleveland Indians: Jeff Francoeur, Designated Punim Look at this face and tell me you wouldn’t want this guy on your team. While Francoeur never quite became Roy Hobbs, he’s historically been a very playable outfielder when used in a platoon role; in 2011, he hit .302/.363/.570 against left-handed pitchers while showing off his always present rocket arm in right field. Francoeur was absolutely terrible offensively the last two years, and his speed and defensive range dipped as well. He’s still just 30 years old, though, and if he played in a platoon with David Murphy while making a maximum of $1 million, Francoeur could still prove to be a useful piece for a contending team.